Case Comment

Molins and Molins Machine Co., Ltd. v.
Industrial Machinery Co., Ltd.

citation(s): (1938) 55 R.P.C. 31 per Greene, M.R. (C.A.)

copyright 1997 Donald M. Cameron, Aird & Berlis




The Decision

At p.39:

"But it is said that upon its true construction the claim must be read in a more limited sense in order to give effect to what is stated to be the sole object of the invention, namely, to remedy a defect which appears only at "high speeds". In other words, it is said that words must be imported into the claim limiting it to cases of what are called high speed machines, that is to say, machines capable of running at a high speed. That such a phrase, if it had appeared in the claim, might have been exposed to attack on the ground of ambiguity is, I think, apparent; but I need not deal with that. It is sufficient for me to say that in my opinion there is no justification whatever for importing into the claim, drawn as it is in simple and direct language, a limitation extracted either from the language of the body of the specification or from the purpose at which the invention is aiming. It has been laid down over and over again that this method of construing a Patent Specification is inadmissible.


Return to:

Cameron's IT Law: Home Page; Index

Cameron's Canadian Patent & Trade Secrets Law: Home Page; Index

JurisDiction Home Page